Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

DIABETES, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, OBESITY, SUGAR, WEIGHTSugar is indeed toxic. It may not be the only problem with the Standard American Diet, but itís fast becoming clear that itís the major one.

A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a populationís food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.

In other words, according to this study, obesity doesnít cause diabetes: sugar does.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the studyís authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, ďYou could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.Ē

The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding ďBradford HillĒ criteria for whatís called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar thatís available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration(if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence(diabetics donít start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics).

The key point in the article is this: ďEach 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.Ē Thus: for every 12 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverage introduced per person per day into a countryís food system, the rate of diabetes goes up 1 percent. (The study found no significant difference in results between those countries that rely more heavily on high-fructose corn syrup and those that rely primarily on cane sugar.)...

And as Lustig lucidly wrote in ďFat Chance,Ē his compelling 2012 book that looked at the causes of our diet-induced health crisis, itís become clear that obesity itself is not the cause of our dramatic upswing in chronic disease. Rather, itís metabolic syndrome, which can strike those of ďnormalĒ weight as well as those who are obese. Metabolic syndrome is a result of insulin resistance, which appears to be a direct result of consumption of added sugars. This explains why thereís little argument from scientific quarters about the ďobesity wonít kill youĒ studies; technically, theyíre correct, because obesity is a marker for metabolic syndrome, not a cause.

The take-away: it isnít simply overeating that can make you sick; itís overeating sugar. We finally have the proof we need for a verdict: sugar is toxic.

So what is his solution? Have the US FDA to ban sugar in foods, and the US EPA regulate sugar as a toxic chemical? I mean, he did call it toxic. As you can tell, I think this is ridiculous hyperbole.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 01:17:04 PM by Buckmark »

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Love donuts (who doesn't), hate Krispy Kremes. They are to donuts what McDonalds is to hamburgers. It's weird how all their donuts have the same too soft consistency and they are all too sweet.

So the story talks about how its sugar that's the problem. If the government creates policy to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Then why wouldn't the government create policy to reduce the amount of sugar in the food supply?

We create policy to prevent people from speeding, smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, buying guns..all done in the public interest. Wouldn't curbing the amount of sugar people eat also be in the interest of the government coming from a policy standpoint. After all, the largest purchaser of medical care is the government, reducing sugar intake would save a lot of money in government spending.

Bloomberg in NY banned sugary sodas for much of the same reason.

I'm just playing devils advocate however, I do expect that nutrition will be a big wave of government policy in the future, like smoking was in the past two decades.

My boss in Chicago discovered Krispy Cream while we were on business trip to NC for a furniture show in High Point . It was his obsession while we were there to watch for the blinking light so he could get two for one donuts . I don't know if they still do the blinking light special anymore .

We create policy to prevent people from speeding, smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, buying guns..all done in the public interest.

we don't really "prevent" speeding but we do suggest/legalize caution and punish lawbreakers.

Personally I believe that they have regulated smoking TOO much already. If a bar/restaurant wants to permit smoking and the patrons want to smoke, they should be allowed. Eating should be the same way. You want to ingest something not particularly "healthy", then that's your issue. I guess it's the libertarian in me. LOL

the alternative is to let the government (local, state, federal) continue down this path and after smoking and food then begin to regulate sex, sports, hobbies, etc as all of those can be and are detrimental to the health status of some citizens.

Now that under the ACA everyone should soon have medical coverage, it then becomes a problem of insurance companies to try to incentivize their subscribers to less smoking and better eating habits to curtails the cost to their consumers and the cost to the insurance company

Logged

leatherman (aka mIkIE)

All the stars are flashing high above the seaand the party is on fire around you and meWe're gonna burn this disco down before the morning comes- Pet Shop Boys chart from 1992-2015Isentress/Prezcobix

I would like very much to see gay bars in Atlanta go "smoke free." They claim they would lose customers, but as I see it, as a niche market, there else would gay folks go?

The caveat of course IS to allow smoking on the balconies and patios. During the spring and summer at the very least, that would solve a lot of problems. And I might get dragged to more shows. Insert puns about dragging/cigs and drag queens.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Love donuts (who doesn't), hate Krispy Kremes. They are to donuts what McDonalds is to hamburgers. It's weird how all their donuts have the same too soft consistency and they are all too sweet.

So the story talks about how its sugar that's the problem. If the government creates policy to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Then why wouldn't the government create policy to reduce the amount of sugar in the food supply?

We create policy to prevent people from speeding, smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, buying guns..all done in the public interest. Wouldn't curbing the amount of sugar people eat also be in the interest of the government coming from a policy standpoint. After all, the largest purchaser of medical care is the government, reducing sugar intake would save a lot of money in government spending.

Bloomberg in NY banned sugary sodas for much of the same reason.

I'm just playing devils advocate however, I do expect that nutrition will be a big wave of government policy in the future, like smoking was in the past two decades.

Not to split hairs, open another can of worms, or do more internet hyperbole, but isn't most of the issue around HFCS?

I mean, did we have this problem before that?

Before we all jump on, I know the world today is barely recognizable from the world in the 1970s and early 80s, before HFCS replaced cane sugar as a sweetener in everything from soda to sandwich bread. But I sometimes wonder if the culprit might not partially be an engineered product that produces chemical imbalances in the human body that are leagues beyond sugar in it's cane (or beet) form.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

HFCS isn't used (for example) in sodas in Mexico, but there's plenty of obesity. I actually think the focus on HFCS is somewhat bogus. And you see it increasing in the developing world as they have more access to American-style fast food chains as well as an increased reliance on automobiles. Look at China, etc. Americans were just fatter first because this lifestyle change began here. Simple changes in what you eat and walking more/using stairs can greatly change the obesity issue.

I have to agree with JK . I would think many of the metabolic problems people face today would most likely have to do with the fact we are now almost completely reliant upon highly processed food and consumer products .

It seems the farther we move away from fresh whole foods the faster our health declines . I cant help but feel isn't as simple as a few factors , but many .

I have to agree with JK . I would think many of the metabolic problems people face today would most likely have to do with the fact we are now almost completely reliant upon highly processed food and consumer products .

It seems the farther we move away from fresh whole foods the faster our health declines . I cant help but feel isn't as simple as a few factors , but many .

I am the first to scoff at allergies to things like gluten and wheat and peanuts and the like. Because when I ws growing up, there simply weren't any.

But the more I read about the genetically engineered wheat we eat, the methods which have substantially been altered in producing and processing legumes, grains, and other foods - many of these methods combining serious science to mesh atomic materials that don't like to be put together, it really isn't that far-fetched to imagine a climate change in that regard.

The flour we use today is most absolutely NOT our mothers, or our grandmother's flour. Any more than the Viracept some people take today resembles the porous, vomity horse pills offered in 1997.

As important as it is to "keep up" with technology to, for example, view bullying in 2013 as vastly different than it was in 1982, it is equally important to take that same skeptical, Socratic view towards the stuff we eat before simple blaming it all on the fatties and the World of Warcraft.

Eat a Kroger chicken, with minimal seasoning. Then eat an "artisanal" chicken from a local place. It will be smaller, scary expensive, and taste NOTHING like the chicken you get at the grocery store.

Hell, as someone who cooks, I have even had to alter my spices to compensate. The recipes from as little as 20 years ago no longer strictly apply, the tastes are so dramatically different.

As in HIV, the "devil" is in the details. The assumption that each ingredient, each component of our lives is the same as it was when we were growing up, is a comfortable fallacy that science simply does not support.

For the record, I am not against genetically altered or modified food. I simply think that we need to alter our paradigm to accommodate that difference, and change our consumption accordingly.

BTW- about three times a year I eat the holy hell out of about four Krispy Kremes. They are beautiful remnant of my childhood and they rock the holiest of houses.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

There was a time when sugar was so scares and precious that most population got along with life very well without it. Now this neurotoxin has invaded our lives and seek to destroy our way of life. The government has to do something now before it is too late and then the space invaders of planet x will rule the earth and enslave all inhabitants. It's a world gone mad. No one will survive...........................

Oh, wait a minute. Just got off my sucrose high and soon to comma state. Dam Donuts. lol

My parents did not follow the "heart healthy" diets that are of so much interest today. We didn't eat pork, since my mother was Adventist, but did eat beef and other meats. My parents also always had sweets around, such as ice cream, cake, and on Friday nights when my father would come home from work, he would always have donuts for Saturday morning. We also had a fresh vegetable with our meals, and my mother always had us eat fruit with breakfast.

However, none of my family was ever overweight. We all ate our food in certain serving sizes and hardly ever got seconds. When we did (get seconds) it was in a very small portion.

And, we were active. We rode bikes, played wiffleball (don't know if that's spelled right), and regularly went to the zoo's, parks, beaches, etc. We didn't have gadgets that kept us glued to them crazy. I remember when Atari came out, we were only allowed on it for a certain length of time. I'm not saying "gadgets" cause obesity, but it seems more and more people, children especially, can't seem to get away from them.

I tend to agree with Ann. Everything in moderation, including moderation. People need to monitor their intake and output (physical activity) to make sure one balances out the other. I know there are more chemicals used in today's food compared to the past, but we all need to take responsibility for our own health. Isn't that what we tell people about their sexual health? To take responsibility? So goes the same with other aspects of "health."

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Betty made an excellent point about the change in lifestyle from when I was growing up and the kids today . I was talking to a friend who's 10 year old son had never once played in the woods or had taken a hike . The kid was all Lego's and computer games and strictly in the family room .

When his cousin visited his mom told them to go outside and play , go explore the woods , build a fort . She told me they both became near hysterical when they realized she was serious , she was trying not to laugh as they begged and pleaded not to be thrown into the wilderness . She said they actually wept and used Lyme disease and being eaten by bears as the excuse to stay indoors .

They were so fearful she followed through , when they come home excited and asking if they could do it again tomorrow all was well . The woman who told me this story owns a local gym and is very fit , she now tells this story to lots of people at the gym because it never dawned on her till that day she was raising a child to be just like the people she trains every day , forty year old adults who are so obese they cant even walk on a treadmill for 5 minutes .

Sometimes it's nature, sometimes it's nurture, but when you are the one who is obese, it is hard to deal with this problem because it is hard to fight the cravings for the foods that will make or keep you obese while at the same time it is easy to eat these foods for they give a great amount of comfort and immediate pleasure when you are stress. It is easy for the non-obese to say just stop eating that, eat more healthy, and jump on a treadmill or go jogging, but those foods, mainly sugary foods, acts as a neurotoxin and in a most intangible way keep the mindset of eating the wrong foods and inactivity. I've been there and back again and I can understand the near impossibility of fighting what seems a most mentally good thing to do. One of the worst things is when one comes to the conclusion, regardless of the reasoning, that this is the way I am and nothing can change that.

I just wanted to state that we should not conclude that being obese is a easily solvable problem for it is not. It is more of a slippery slope for those whose metabolism reacts in a specific way that leads to becoming over weight. I remember reading Lynn Redgrave book, "This is Living," and how she found herself sneaking loads of sweets, I think chocolate, at an early age and continued in this food addiction pushed her toward becoming overweight. I find myself avoiding when possible cakes, ice creams, breads, cereals, juices, soft drinks, etc., for I know I tend to over eat or over drink and suddenly I am over weight and eating more because I am "over weight." It takes allot of mental strength to find the right way to lose the weight and try to eat what my body considers a balance food intake. My sugar/food addiction is always there so it is easy for me to fall back into the wrong eating habits. I guess some peoples meal is my poison or trap back into over-weight-ness. But either way, some people can never comprehend the over eating problems for they do not understand the link and the addiction of what some foods effects on those who can become or are over weight.